New Study Finds Most Law Firms Mum on Mandatory Arbitration for Summer Associates
At least five notable firms will require their 2019 summer associate classes to agree to mandatory arbitration provisions, according to a new survey released Monday by students from the nation's top law schools. Nearly half of firms surveyed remained silent about whether they would ask their young talent to assent to such obligations.
June 11, 2018 at 09:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
made waves last month when they announced law firms interviewing on campus to complete a survey and openly disclose whether they will require summer associates to submit to forced arbitration provisions and related nondisclosure agreements. On Monday, students from those law schools released the results of that survey, which found that, while many firms will not require their summer associates to sign arbitration agreements, some are still pushing such deals on their young legal talent . But perhaps more surprising was that of the nearly 400 law firms and legal organizations surveyed by students from 50 leading law schools, most firms chose not to respond. “Almost half of the firms who received the survey—nearly two hundred—have decided to hide behind a wall of secrecy,” said a statement from Molly Coleman, a rising second-year law student at Harvard Law School and one of the organizers of the campaign. “Especially in the #MeToo era, we are disheartened that they are unwilling to take a simple step to engage on this important issue.” Allen & Overy; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft; DLA Piper; Faegre Baker Daniels; Kirkland & Ellis; Littler Mendelson; Nixon Peabody; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart; Reed Smith; Seyfarth Shaw; Sidley Austin; and Squire Patton Boggs did not respond to the survey. Debate over the inclusion of increasingly controversial arbitration provisions for summer associates began either this year after former Jones Day associate and current HLS lecturer Ian Samuel tweeted that Munger, Tolles & Olson was requiring its summer associates to sign mandatory arbitration and nondisclosure agreements in their employment contracts. The firm quickly backtracked, announcing that it would be doing away with mandatory arbitration provisions and related nondisclosure agreements for its summer associates. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom also quickly followed suit. But the fervor Samuel's tweet generated in light of the #MeToo movement prompted law students across the nation to petition their university's administrations to require employers recruiting on campus to do away with forced arbitration provisions. “Every law school's paramount responsibility is to ensure the well-being and safety of students before and after graduation,” said a statement from Ata Akiner , a third-year law student at the Georgetown University Law Center and a former trade analyst at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle . , five firms—Cooley; Drinker Biddle & Reath; Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear; Paul Hastings; Stoel Rives and Varnum—said they would require their 2019 summer associate classes to be subject to mandatory arbitration provisions for employment-related disputes. (Click here for a complete list of firms and legal organizations that do not require their summer associates to sign forced arbitration agreements.) a newly-formed litigation boutique
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement - With Conditions
5 minute readOn Governor's Desk: NY 'Death Gamble' Bill That Seeks to Correct Pension Anomaly for Judges
'Serious Misconduct' From Monsanto Lawyer Prompts Mistrial in Chicago Roundup Case
3 minute readCleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250